DISQUS

Nicholas Weininger · 1 year ago

Of course, if they took their own "libertarian paternalism" argument seriously, they would favor not only changing in the nudge-paternalist direction those things that are now more straightforwardly left to individual choice, but also changing to nudge-paternalism those aspects of our lives now controlled by old-style, no-opt-out, do-this-or-we-shoot-you paternalism.

For example, a consistent libertarian paternalist would support making Social Security opt-out, support school vouchers to let parents opt their kids out of public schools, and oppose any universal health care proposal that did not let people opt out and use their money to buy their own health insurance, or even forgo health insurance altogether.

Somehow I doubt Sunstein + Thaler would sign on to that part.

DWAnderson · 1 year ago

Two good questions:

"If Sunstein and Thaler were our wise choice archietcts, would it be legal or illegal for employers to not offer employment contracts without opt-out savings/investment accounts?"

Would they "support making Social Security opt-out, support school vouchers to let parents opt their kids out of public schools, and oppose any universal health care proposal that did not let people opt out and use their money to buy their own health insurance, or even forgo health insurance altogether."

Why not ask and see what the response is? I confess that what I have heard descriptions of libertarian paternalism, my reaction was: as a libertarian, I would take this deal any day. If we get to make a bunch of new choices and easy opt-in/out regimes, having default choices chosen by the state seems lie little to give up. Welcome to our new allies Cass and Richard!

But I agree if they were not willing to go along with choices in response to the questions above, the libertarian part seems little more than a ruse to inject paternalism into framing.

John Markley · 1 year ago

Great post! You express my own reasons for distrusting "libertarian paternalism" much more effectively than I could myself. The first thing I thought when I encountered this idea for the first time was precisely, "How will it affect the culture if government control is considered the default for everything, and independent choice is something you have to specifically ask for?" It gets even worse if people are told that such a system is "liberty."

Another problem is that it would be trivially easy for the ruling "choice architects" to put their fingers on the scale by making the procedure for opting out of a given default rule as lengthy, burdensome, and difficult as possible. You could impose significant nonmonetary costs on people who want to opt out, and still insist that the system is libertarian.

berger · 1 year ago

It seems to me that if you concede that there is no such thing as neutral choice architecture then your objection to "libertarian paternalism" can't really be that it interferes with free choice (because this is now inevitable) but that there's some sort of intentionality or thought process that's gone into disposing our architectures one way or another. But given that our various architectures are going to be biased one way or another, why not put some thought into those choices?

Pithlord · 1 year ago

Berger makes a good point. Your objection is in the name of a sort of freedom you concede is impossible. Further, if the "choice architectures" are the product of the messy democratic process, they aren't really planned anyway.

Joe Marier · 1 year ago

John Markey makes the point well. If "libertarian paternalism" means we nudge the things we don't like, but what we have (Social Security, Medicare), we keep, then it's a ruse.

Personally, I'd prefer paternalistic libertarianism to libertarian paternalism.

Alan Light · 1 year ago

Naturally a tool is only as good as the workman who wields it, but that said I think Libertarian Paternalism could be a good tool.

I'd like to be able to presume that a restaurant will be smoke-free, or at least have a smoke-free section, unless a sign outside clearly states "Smoking allowed here." That is, I'd like smoke-free dining to be the default, but I also strenuously oppose laws preventing restaurants from allowing their patrons to smoke. What I mostly want is to know what to expect before I enter a smoke-filled room.

Similarly, there are plenty of people who have no financial acumen whatsoever. Coming up with some good savings plans and implementing them by default will save *everyone* a great deal of grief down the line - but allowing choices will allow this *with* financial acumen to manage their money for themselves.

There are many choices that we make every day, and frequently we are not well informed. I, for one, would like to know that the food I eat has passed muster as safe without having to examine the background of every item I eat - but I don't want to prevent those who want it from drinking fresh, non-pasteurized milk, or eating rare meat, or the like. With a default system in place I could go to a restaurant and know that the food had passed quality control without having to specifically inquire, if the restaurant were required to inform patrons of any dishes that did not meet those standards. Those interested and knowledgeable could seek out other means of insuring that their food is safe, while ignorant folk like myself could just eat. Same way with prescription drugs. Surely that would be preferable to our current one-size-fits-all regulation.

Naturally we need to have discussions about what the defaults should be, and perhaps even a rule that if a plurality of the public makes a different choice, it should become the new default. Likewise we would have to guard against implicit bullying and the de facto denial of opting out (which I have seen in the military where it is theoretically possible but practically impossible to opt out of life insurance) - but even so, this could be a powerful tool in derailing calls for mandatory programs and requirements.

As others have said, if the authors would not support this system to replace much of what we already have, it is probably a ruse - but I think the idea itself is sound.

Doug · 1 year ago

POints well taken, but I would much prefer a libertarian paternalismn along these lines than a tax and subsidy structure, a prohibition or mandate approach, or whatever else has been come up with thus far. I thihnk once you allow for people having judgment biases (which seems to be the case), and admit that the government in a democracy is always going to be trying to mess with people'S business (which also seems to be the case), a libertarian paternalism is really the best you can hope for.

Peter Kaplan · 1 year ago

My personal advocacy of paternalistic libertarianism is more in product design and space design, rather than in institutional sociology & socioeconomics. That said, I do agree that government will always be irresponsible in its political nudges to the left or to the right, and therefore should not be further empowered along these lines, even in the name of so-called liberty or even true liberty. (See PATRIOT ACT.)

However, there does exist the practical possibility of a self-interested government that would use nudges not for left/right political purposes but rather to enhance the civility or livability of society in a way that would be essentially unobjectionable. By this I mean that the nudged choices would serve every citizen's interest as well as the government's interest, in both the long term and short term, without harmful externalities, all while strengthening the constitution. An example might be a campaign of nudged choice toward personal responsibility.

In sum: I find it inadequate, and in fact counterproductive, to restrict to a left/right axis the discussion of the shortcomings of paternalistic libertarianism as a political tool. Improving society and livability are not essentially left/right propositions, they are shallow/deep propositions, and such are precisely the forte of choice architecture.

Peter Kaplan · 1 year ago

Sorry, to clarify:
The phrase "toward personal responsibility" in my post above is not meant to read "away from collective responsibility," but rather "away from blame/victim mentality" (or in practical terms, "away from legalisticity"). I do not believe that the social safety net is the essential cause for personal irresponsibility in this country, and I would not accept such a position as part of an authentically deep/shallow choice architecture.

David Friedman · 1 year ago

A number of people in blog discussions raised the question of just how libertarian, in several respects, libertarian paternalism is. I don't know Thaler, but Cass Sunstein is an ex-colleague, so I asked him--both about the freedom to choose of private choice architects and about rolling back current non-libertarian paternalist policies. A summary of his response, written by me then amended by him:

Yes, private choice architects should have freedom of choice. Some, but not necessarily all, current paternalist measures should be rolled back; in particular the book explicitly supports school vouchers and freedom of contract to allow doctors and patients to contract around medical malpractice liability.

My conclusion is that although Cass is not currently a hard core libertarian, his position is libertarian in the weaker sense that adds up to 10-15% of the electorate--he wants less (but not necessarily zero) government compulsion in both economic and social matters than now exists.

Dining Room · 5 months ago

well design of restaurants, schools and hotels really matters.. But what really matter is their service, facilities and how good their furniture's are.. In a restaurant smoking shouldn't be permitted..

classical music · 4 months ago

There are so many talented architecture now a days, creating all those pretty architectural buildings and establishments. Even though the designs are attractive they must be sure that this buildings can last for a long time.

medical_malpractice_attorney · 1 month ago

This is so interested! Where can I find more like this?